Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

• You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
• Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
• For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
• If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

• I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
• If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
• It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
• Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
• I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
• The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

Come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done pls unless you have a paradigm question

| LINE BY LINE | SIGNPOST | EXTEND ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | HAVE FUN |

-General-

• Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
• Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
• Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
• Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
• TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
• For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
• If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

• DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
• Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
• Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
• sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

• Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
• Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
• Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
• "Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
• Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.

• Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):

  • Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
  • If there's any empirics read on the argument
  • Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
  • I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
  • Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

• I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -
• If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
• If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
• If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
• Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.
• If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
• As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
• I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.

• THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:

  • I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
  • (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

• Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
• I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
• Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

• Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
• To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
• Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
• I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
• 30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.